Cyprus-Forum.com

[Othellos]

Definition of racism (from a very quick search on the net):

http://www.sahrc.org.za/definition_of_racism.htm

The ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) defines racism as follows:
“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

The International Council on Human Rights Policy (IHCRP) argues:
“racism has not disappeared… we confront forms of racism that are covert or more complex or are linked to wider issues, such as changes in the nature of the state, gender discrimination, or marginalisation due to developments in the global economy.”

Erolz, for some reason your reply regarding wether the TCs are after permanent derogations did not show up. If it is not too much trouble for you, please re-post.

O.

[erolz]

Definition of racism (from a very quick search on the net):

http://www.sahrc.org.za/definition_of_racism.htm

The ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) defines racism as follows:
“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

So in your view and using the above defintion do you think that the restrictions placed on some EU citizens re freedom to work and live in any other EU country is racist? Do you think that the far greater representation that small member states like the RoC (at all levels of the EU) have vs larger states like the UK in the EU is racist. Personaly I do not think these things are 'racist' in the common sense of the word. Even if I accept that they could be considered racist by the above defintion (and I would expect consistency in anyone who did insist they were racist) I do not think they are racist in the same way as saying all that a certain people/race know how to do is kill, rape and steal is racist. Do you think they are racist in the same way? Do you really think the degrogations on some new member states re freedom to work in the EU are racist, or the dispropotionate representation that the RoC gets vs larger states in the EU is racist?

Erolz, for some reason your reply regarding wether the TCs are after permanent derogations did not show up. If it is not too much trouble for you, please re-post.

Not sure what happened it should have read

There are a range of views on the TC side on this issue. From having no geographical seperation at all (but political seperation), through to having a period of such and too permanent restrictions.

[Othellos]

So in your view and using the above defintion do you think that the restrictions placed on some EU citizens re freedom to work and live in any other EU country is racist?

But we are not talking about "any other country" here erolz. We are talking about restrictions within the very own country of EU citizens (in this case Cyprus). Restricting their basic human rights in the areas of settlement, movement and work in an island where they have existed for thousands of years is in my view absolutely racist!

Do you think that the far greater representation that small member states like the RoC (at all levels of the EU) have vs larger states like the UK in the EU is racist.

If this were the case (and I am not sure that it is) then one could perhaps argue that Cyprus has more rights than what its population size and contribution in the EU entitles us to. But just because Cyprus may be over-represented in the EU, this does not mean that the basic human rights of other EU citizens are being affected. This could perhaps be the case if Cyprus abused their responsibilities and powers that as a EU member state holds. I suspect that when the larger EU states agreed that the little ones should also have a voice (and even the right to veto a common decision) they also knew that it would be foolish of any small (in size) member to abuse these privileges. The lesson for us Cypriots (Greek, Turk or other) here is simple: whatever power or rights we may have, these must always be handled responsibly.

Personaly I do not think these things are 'racist' in the common sense of the word. Even if I accept that they could be considered racist by the above defintion (and I would expect consistency in anyone who did insist they were racist) I do not think they are racist in the same way as saying all that a certain people/race know how to do is kill, rape and steal is racist. Do you think they are racist in the same way?

Accusing someone of being a rapist or a thief because of his national background is also just as racist. Racist behaviour can be expressed in many different ways and making such generalizations about people is only one of them.

O.

[erolz]

You presented a definition of racism. It was presented (I assume) as your argument as to why restrictions place on GC re total freedom to live and work anywhere in Cyprus is racist. If that is the basis for why you claim it is is racist, then the same is true of the restrictions placed on some EU cictzens to their total freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU. The difference between the freedom being within a country or within a union of countries is not germaine to the assement of racism based on your quoted defintion. Both examples meet the same criterion in these terms - namely that a restriction (though the tyoe of restrcition is different) is placed on someone because of their nationality. That is the aspect that you seemd to be arguing was racist - using your quoted defintion. There is nothing in the defintion that says such a restriction within your own country is racist but within a union of countries it is not racist.

Now do not get me wrong - I totaly understand the differnce you point out and can understand anyone considerinng one execption 'reasonable' and the other totaly unreasonable. However their is no logic, using your quoted definition to call one racist and not the other. Personaly I do not think either is racist and certainly not in the same way as calling all members of a given race negative things is racist (motivation matters to me in this regard and is not in your defintion at all).

So it seems to me (and I may have got you wrong here) that you are actualy arguing that a restriction on someone in their own country based on race / nationality is racist but a restriction on sonmeone in their own union of countries based on race / nationality is not racist? If so I find this position inconsistent. One could argue that it's the 'severity' of the restriction based on race / nationality that makes it racist or not - but that has not been your argument to date - as far as I have understood it, nor does it make your posted defintion relevant in making this point.

If this were the case (and I am not sure that it is)

It is most definately the case, there can be little 'argument' about it as far as I am concerned. The three main insitutions of the EU are

EU Parliament - Here Cyprus gets (very roughly) 1 MP per 100,000 - 150,000 citizens. The Uk get about 1 Euro MP per every 800,000 citizens.

EU Commission - Under the old rules the UK got 2 and Cyprus 1. Under new rules its 1 from Cyprus and 1 from UK (and other larger states)

EU Council of Ministers - Again 1 from UK and 1 from Cyprus.

There can be little doubt that Cyprus has disproprtionatley more representation per population than the larger states.

then one could perhaps argue that Cyprus has more rights than what its population size and contribution in the EU entitles us to. But just because Cyprus may be over-represented in the EU, this does not mean that the basic human rights of other EU citizens are being affected. This could perhaps be the case if Cyprus abused their responsibilities and powers that as a EU member state holds. I suspect that when the larger EU states agreed that the little ones should also have a voice (and even the right to veto a common decision) they also knew that it would be foolish of any small (in size) member to abuse these privileges. The lesson for us Cypriots (Greek, Turk or other) here is simple: whatever power or rights we may have, these must always be handled responsibly.

My point in highlighting this disproprotionate representation of Cyprus in the EU is to counter the idea that as a matter of principal any representation disproportionate to population numbers is either undemocratic or racist. It is often argued by some here that anything that does not allow for a numerical majority to have unlimited power to impose decisons is fundamental undemocratic. If this is the case then the EU (and the USA) are both undemocratic - as I see things. I understand the difference between democracy in a state and democracy between states - but if the argument is (as it is often presented) that it is a fundamental requirment of ANY democratic system that representation is allways directly related to population alone within ANY insitution, then this has tyo mean the EU is undemocratic.

Accusing someone of being a rapist or a thief because of his national background is also just as racist. Racist behaviour can be expressed in many different ways and making such generalizations about people is only one of them.

O.

You see here we fundamentaly disagree. I do not think the issues you raise above (restrictions place on someone by race / nationality or disproportionate (to population numbers) representation based on race / antionality are fundamentaly racist. I think they can be but that it is a very 'grey' area. Calling all memebers of a particular race a theif or rapist on the other hand is, to me, clearly racists in a black and white sense. It is always so. Therefore I just cannot accept that the later senarios are 'just as racist' as you put it.

[Othellos]

Erolz, you are discussing 2 different subjects at once: Racism with respect to a solution in Cyprus and over representation.

A. RACISM:

You presented a definition of racism. It was presented (I assume) as your argument as to why restrictions place on GC re total freedom to live and work anywhere in Cyprus is racist. If that is the basis for why you claim it is is racist, then the same is true of the restrictions placed on some EU cictzens to their total freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU.

That may well be the case erolz. Nevertheless, I find it more annoying and more racist (or rather totally racist) to be excluded from settling, living or work in 1/3 of my country from where I was evicted by force in the first place, just because I happen to be a GC. The fact that I can do any of the above without any restrictions in Paris or Madrid but not in Cyprus where I were born, makes it even worse. After all, France or Spain is not my home country, so I do not care as much to be there.

The "security" excuse I do not accept as every law-abiding citizen has responsibilities and rights. And as for history, one of the concepts behind the EU is that there must never be another WW in Europe. If there are no restrictions to where French citizens live in Germany and vice versa then why should one accept that such restrictions must exist in his own country and that these restrictions are not racist?

The only case I know btw where there are some permanent restrictions in the settlement of people within the EU are the Aaland islets in Finland. These have been inhabited by a Swede population for centuries and have been autonomous for about 80 years now (that is well before the EU existed). This group of islands constitutes only a tiny part of Finland where 25,000 people live (= less than 0.005% of the country's 5 million people). Of course one can try arguing that all this is "racist" but then again I do not see the rest of the people of Finland complaining about it. Furthermore this rare case cannot be compared to Cyprus where Turkey invaded and ethnically cleansed the north part of the island from its indigenous population who in turn are justified to complain about being restricted to settle, live ad exist as human beings in 1/3 of their own country.

………. There is nothing in the defintion that says such a restriction within your own country is racist but within a union of countries it is not racist.

I disagree - the very first word in the definition I quoted was "any". But then again this is only one of the many definitions that exist for racism and I am not absolute about it. You can always come up with a better definition for racism. Even better, why don't you try to find a definition or something that will convince others about how prohibiting people of a particular nationality or religion from living on their native land is not racist?

Now do not get me wrong - I totaly understand the differnce you point out and can understand anyone considerinng one execption 'reasonable' and the other totaly unreasonable. However their is no logic, using your quoted definition to call one racist and not the other……

But I never tried to make any such distinctions, and I do not know why you got this impression. The only thing I wrote was about how the case of Turkey is not a valid example in this discussion because they are not even members yet. Once Turkey becomes a full EU member, I will agree with you that restricting someone from living in Vienna or Palermo simply because he is a Turk will be racist. But I think that this discussion will have to wait for now.

So it seems to me (and I may have got you wrong here) that you are actualy arguing that a restriction on someone in their own country based on race / nationality is racist but a restriction on sonmeone in their own union of countries based on race / nationality is not racist?

But are there such permanent restrictions in the EU other than the one example I already mentioned above and which has absolutely nothing to do with Cyprus? If anything the concept of people to move, live and work freely anywhere in the EU is a fundamental one.

You see here we fundamentaly disagree. I do not think the issues you raise above (restrictions place on someone by race / nationality or disproportionate (to population numbers) representation based on race / antionality are fundamentaly racist. I think they can be but that it is a very 'grey' area.

If you really believe this you can always go to a multi-ethnic / democratic society (like the US for example) and make a public speech in broad daylight about how it is not fundamentally racist to place restrictions on where Americans can live in their country because of their race or national background or colour etc. You can argue for example that no Black American can live in NYC (which after all is much smaller than what the 1/3 of USA is), or why no more than 1 million Hispanic Americans must be allowed to work in California (that still way smaller than 1/3 of the US). If they buy this principle then I will accept your argument too.

Calling all memebers of a particular race a theif or rapist on the other hand is, to me, clearly racists in a black and white sense.

I have already agreed with that erolz. Racist labels can be upsetting but racist behaviour can be even more annoying. To me it seems that although you object to racist labels, you are not as ready to condemn racist behaviour at least in one case.

B. OVER REPRESENTATION:

There can be little doubt that Cyprus has disproprtionatley more representation per population than the larger states.

To the best of my knowledge the size of Cyprus alone restricts us from participating in many EU boards and sub-comities. In other words we do not have enough people in Bruxelles to participate in them. It is for this reason that I am not sure that Cyprus is better represented (let alone over represented) in the EU compared to a country like France or the UK. But this is not as important, as I fail to see how our over representation (resulting from numbers that were not established by us) affects in any way the rights of other EU members or citizens? It is not as if Cyprus owns the EU.

My point in highlighting this disproprotionate representation of Cyprus in the EU is to counter the idea that as a matter of principal any representation disproportionate to population numbers is either undemocratic or racist.

Again, it all depends on how the rights of others are affected by over representation. We know for example that in the 1960 agreements the TC community in Cyprus was over represented in the island's government (a similar over representation was also proposed in the Annan plan). If that was the only issue and if there were no practical difficulties with it one could say "okay, if Cyprus can be over represented in the EU then why can’t it be the same with the TCs in Cyprus?". In the case of Cyprus however, the over-representation of the TCs became a point of friction in those early days of the RoC. The TCs for example complained that the 70-30 ratio in the civil service was not being implemented quickly enough, and the GCs argued back that there weren't enough qualified TCs to fill all the posts that the above ratio entitled them to. In another example, the 70-30 ratio did not reflect the islands' demography and became again an issue again when it was proposed that the schools of both communities were funded by the State. The Turkish side insisted on splitting the funding 70-30 and the Greek side insisted that it should be proportional to the population. Wouldn’t it all be a lot simpler if we had 80-20 from the start? After all there would be one less point to argue about.

More recently and in the Annan plan the over representation of the TCs was also reflected in the area of each constituent state where the TCs would maintain over 1.5 times the amount of land that they are entitled to because of their population size, which also created some additional difficulties on how the properties and refuees issue would be settled. Therefore, although your argument may look correct at first glance, in the case of Cyprus it has caused problems.

It is often argued by some here that anything that does not allow for a numerical majority to have unlimited power to impose decisons is fundamental undemocratic. If this is the case then the EU (and the USA) are both undemocratic - as I see things. I understand the difference between democracy in a state and democracy between states - but if the argument is (as it is often presented) that it is a fundamental requirment of ANY democratic system that representation is allways directly related to population alone within ANY insitution, then this has tyo mean the EU is undemocratic.

Whether it is democracy within a state or between states, the same underlying principles should always be there. As argued above a EU citizen can settle anywhere within the EU. And a US citizen can move from Texas and settle in Alaska without any restrictions or limitations. Consequently no one feels that his or her rights are being oppressed or violated in any way, and this is the reason why we see no one complaining about the issue in the EU or the US, and of course no one is labelling them "undemocratic". Why the eagerness by some countries to join if the EU is such an "undemocratic" institution?

O.

P.S: As long as we are discussing over representation: yesterday I read in "Alithia" newspaper (a GC daily) a great article about a proposed increase in the number of our MP’s here in Cyprus. Its author is George Lordos and I wonder if he is related to our "own" Alexandros. Alexandre, if you know this guy please pass on my congratulations to him for his excellent work.

O.

[Piratis]

Erolz keeps confusing racism, with different treatment of people having different citizenships.

Why do you think countries give citizenships, Erolz? A citizenship gives you certain rights and certain responsibilities. E.g. A citizen of Cyprus has the right to vote in Cyprus elections, and has the obligation of serving in the army for 26 months(if male).

So is it racism that when I was in the US as a student they didn't allow me to work and vote, and they required from me to have a visa to stay there?
No it is not, because I am not a US citizen. The same in Cyprus. While EU citizens have favorable treatment compared to citizens of other countries, they are still foreign citizens.

You may argue that discrimination based on citizenship is bad, and that the whole world should be united without borders. However, that is a totally different story.

Racism is discrimination based on race, just like sexism is discrimination based on gender.

So Erolz, maybe what I said was racist, however this didn't have any implication on anybody. On the other hand, your racist demands can lead (if you succeed) to discrimination and violation of human rights of 1000s of people. I believe it is clear who the most racist is. You are in denial, but even if you don't admit it in here I hope that by now you realized that you indeed support something bad just because it fits you.

[erolz]

Erolz, you are discussing 2 different subjects at once: Racism with respect to a solution in Cyprus and over representation.

Both have been 'labeled' as racist at various points.

That may well be the case erolz. Nevertheless, I find it more annoying and more racist (or rather totally racist) to be excluded from settling, living or work in 1/3 of my country from where I was evicted by force in the first place, just because I happen to be a GC.

You started by saying such restrictions (on GC) were racist - and provided a defintion of racist to back this up. I pointed out that if you consider such restrictions to be racist then the restrtictions currently in place on some EU citizens were also racist by your defintion. You then said one was different from the other because of in country and out of country (implying as I saw it that one was racist and the other not - because of this difference). I pointed out I accepted the difference and it's meaning for you but not that it was a distiction between one being racist and one not.

So now we get to a 'new' position - as it seems to me. Both are racist, but one is more racist that the other. This was not your position originaly as I understood it. There is nothing worng in refining your postion and reasoning by the way.

The fact that I can do any of the above without any restrictions in Paris or Madrid but not in Cyprus where I were born, makes it even worse. After all, France or Spain is not my home country, so I do not care as much to be there.

I have already accepted that i understand the difference you make, and why you consider one worse than the other. I even accepted that you could fairly call both racist and one more racist (which it now seems you are doing). What I refuted was that you could call / consider one not racist and the other racist which seemed to be your original position as I understood it.

The "security" excuse I do not accept as every law-abiding citizen has responsibilities and rights. And as for history, one of the concepts behind the EU is that there must never be another WW in Europe. If there are no restrictions to where French citizens live in Germany and vice versa then why should one accept that such restrictions must exist in his own country and that these restrictions are not racist?

I am not sure what 'secutity excuse' you are reffering too. I have talked about there being reasons why TC want (those that do) such restrictions on GC (for a period or indefinately). There are restrictions placed on some EU citizens and they have been accepted by those restricted and those doing the restrictions. There are considered to be 'good' reasons for these (temporary) restrictions and they are not generally reagrded as racist.

I disagree - the very first word in the definition I quoted was "any". But then again this is only one of the many definitions that exist for racism and I am not absolute about it. You can always come up with a better definition for racism. Even better, why don't you try to find a definition or something that will convince others about how prohibiting people of a particular nationality or religion from living on their native land is not racist?

If you insist on considering them racist there is nothing much I can do about or any defintion that is likely to convince you. I can and will refute the idea that calling a group of people killers, rapist and theifs is the same in either degree of racism, clearness of racism or actual racism as either the limits that currently exist on EU citizens or those 'proposed' for GC (and TC equally btw).

If you want my personal defintion of racism its to label someone different from yourself (by race, nationality or religion) as worse than yourself because they are different. Actions that are motivate by such a belief are also racists. Actions that are motivated by other beleifs but result in material differences based on race, nationality or religion are not racist. It is the motivation that matters to me. They key point to me is a motive force internally of hatred of a group based on race/ nationality or religious differences. This is the core of what 'racisim' means to me and why it is so dangerous (the hatred element).

But I never tried to make any such distinctions, and I do not know why you got this impression.

You said restrictions on GC were racist.
I said are the restrictions on EU citizens then racist.
You pointed out the differences of the restrictions. You did not accept (or deny) that the restrictions mentioned were racist - you avoided the point originally on the basis of the differences of the restrictions.

This is why I got an impression that you were saying one was racist and one was not. I said I may have misinterpreted your position and suggested that saying both are racist but one is more racist is 'valid' (imo) but saying / implying one was racist and the other was not was not 'valid'. My current interpretation (which is probably still wrong - its very hard to pin you down at times) is that you accept that both are racist and argue that one is more racist that the other (because of the differences in the restriction). If this your position now then I find that a more consistent argument but would point out that 'most people' probably do not support the idea that the restrictions on EU citizens are racist.

The only thing I wrote was about how the case of Turkey is not a valid example in this discussion because they are not even members yet. Once Turkey becomes a full EU member, I will agree with you that restricting someone from living in Vienna or Palermo simply because he is a Turk will be racist. But I think that this discussion will have to wait for now.

The question , as far as I am concerned is does the EU consider temporary restrictions based on race / nationality 'racist'. I believe they do not (because they have agreed such restrictions on some members and if they though such was racist in the common everyday meaning of the word they would not have imposed them) or that if they do they accept that in certain sistuations such 'racist' policies are necessary and acceptable. The point about Turkey is that they have also said they will consider the possibility that permanent restrictions of this type can also be deemed 'necessary and acceptable' (and not racist or not racist enough to be deemed unacceptable). They have not decided that yet but have said they will consider it - rather than expressely rule it out, which was the case prior to Turkeys start of accession.

So you may call and consider the restritions on GC as racist. This I disagree with but understand you argument. You also have to accept that the current restrictions on EU citizens are also racist - though to a lesser degree if you want to talk of degrees of racism. You also have to accept that the EU has can and will consider 'racist' restrictions (temporarily - which they have already done and permanently which they have said they will not rule out may do in the future). As such the issue then is not are the restrictions 'on GC 'racist' but are they 'racist enough' that the EU would not consider them acceptable. This is very differnet to me from where we started this discussion.

But are there such permanent restrictions in the EU other than the one example I already mentioned above and which has absolutely nothing to do with Cyprus? If anything the concept of people to move, live and work freely anywhere in the EU is a fundamental one.

Well some TC are asking for permanent restrictions, some would accept temporary restrictions (and some no restrictions at all). There are no current examples that I know of permanent restrictions in the eu. The EU has clearly said that it would consider permanent restrictions if it deemed them necessary and acceptable.
There is an 'ideal' of free movement of people to live and work anywhere in the EU and there is the reality that the EU has shown it will accept less than this idea when deemed necessary on a tmeporary basis and consider it it on a permanent basis.

If you really believe this you can always go to a multi-ethnic / democratic society (like the US for example) and make a public speech in broad daylight about how it is not fundamentally racist to place restrictions on where Americans can live in their country because of their race or national background or colour etc.

I think that if there is a good enough reason for such restrictions you can argue that such limits based on race are not racists (the motivation is not rooted in hatred of a race) and are acceptable. Like the restrictions on USA citizens to not be ablee to freely live work or settle in the Native Indian Nations within the USA. That is a restrition on USA citizens to their total freedoms within their own 'country' based on race. Native Indian americans can live on their reservations or in the rest of the USA. The non natvie americans can not. I do not see this as racist (quite the reverse it is an attempt to correct previous racism) and I do nto think the american people see this protected status for this group as racist or an infringment of their human rights. Thus if there is enough reason for restrictions or limits based on race and the motivation is not hatred based on race then you can make an argument to americans or anyone else. (PS I understand the idea that the indian reservations are 'sovreign' but really this does not change the argument in my view)

I have already agreed with that erolz. Racist labels can be upsetting but racist behaviour can be even more annoying. To me it seems that although you object to racist labels, you are not as ready to condemn racist behaviour at least in one case.

Racism, for me, is rooted in hatred and that's why it is 'bad'. I condem 'labels' that are rooted in hatred (of a race / nationality / group). I condem racist behaviours that is rooted in hatred. If I though the TC desire for some limits on GC (and their own) total rights to live and work anywhere in Cyprus were based in hatred and not on valid reasons of necessity then I would condem them as strongly as I have condemed Piratis racists comments - which are clearly rooted in hatred of a race.
B. OVER REPRESENTATION:

To the best of my knowledge the size of Cyprus alone restricts us from participating in many EU boards and sub-comities. In other words we do not have enough people in Bruxelles to participate in them. It is for this reason that I am not sure that Cyprus is better represented (let alone over represented) in the EU compared to a country like France or the UK.

You have more Euro Mp's per amount of population than larger countries (and more so than TC would have vs GC), more EU commisioners per amount of population (and vastly more so that TC would have vs GC in Cyprus) and more memebers of the council (again vastly more so). Yet you are not sure the RoC is disproprtionately represented within the EU (according to the 'simple' defintion of what democracy is - as to be used in Cyprus)? I am sorry but with respect I find your reasoning here weak and just 'sopistry'.

But this is not as important, as I fail to see how our over representation (resulting from numbers that were not established by us) affects in any way the rights of other EU members or citizens? It is not as if Cyprus owns the EU.

It measn, if you accept the 'GC' view and defintion of what democracy means and should be in Cyprus, that you have 7-8 times more voting rights in the EU than a UK citizens does in the EU parilament. And about 100 times more in the council and comission. It means that if any disproprtionate representation to numerical numbers is 'not acceptable' and undemocratic in Cyprus then it must also be in EU (and even more so). That is the point. If you wish to argue that represntation diproportionate to numerical numbers is unacceptable in Cyprus between TC and GC, as a mtter of democratic principal, then you must accept the same is true of in the EU with regard to RoC and larger members - and even more so. This is the incosistency I seek to highlight and counter here. For the record I do not think that any system that has such disproprtionate representation is fundamentaly unfair, unacceptable or undemocratic - either in Cyprus between TC and GC or within the EU.

Again, it all depends on how the rights of others are affected by over representation. We know for example that in the 1960 agreements the TC community in Cyprus was over represented in the island's government (a similar over representation was also proposed in the Annan plan). If that was the only issue and if there were no practical difficulties with it one could say "okay, if Cyprus can be over represented in the EU then why can’t it be the same with the TCs in Cyprus?". In the case of Cyprus however, the over-representation of the TCs became a point of friction in those early days of the RoC. The TCs for example complained that the 70-30 ratio in the civil service was not being implemented quickly enough, and the GCs argued back that there weren't enough qualified TCs to fill all the posts that the above ratio entitled them to. In another example, the 70-30 ratio did not reflect the islands' demography and became again an issue again when it was proposed that the schools of both communities were funded by the State. The Turkish side insisted on splitting the funding 70-30 and the Greek side insisted that it should be proportional to the population. Wouldn’t it all be a lot simpler if we had 80-20 from the start? After all there would be one less point to argue about.

So you argument is not that anything other than majority rule is unacceptable, unfair and undemocratic. You argument is that it would be so in Cyprus because TC have shown their 'irresponsible' use of such disproprtionate representation in the past? If so this is a very different position to the impression I got from previous post of yours.

Whether it is democracy within a state or between states, the same underlying principles should always be there.

My point exactly. So if anything other than 'majority rule' (as you define it in Cyprus) is undemoractic then the EU is undemocratic and by a greater degree. The disproprtionate to their numbers reresentation the TC desire in Cyprus (for valid non hatred/ racist based reason imo) is much less than that enjoyed by the RoC today within EU. Yet one is undemocratic and the other is not? (because you dont have as many comittee members - which again I think it you work out vs your population size you will still have more per head of population than lartger states)

Consequently no one feels that his or her rights are being oppressed or violated in any way, and this is the reason why we see no one complaining about the issue in the EU or the US, and of course no one is labelling them "undemocratic". Why the eagerness by some countries to join if the EU is such an "undemocratic" institution?

And if you felt that the restrictions on GC were not 'opressing' you but a necessary (quite possibly) temporary measure, based not on hatred of GC, but on a need to find a way for us to renuite that is realisitc and acceptable to all and takes into account our history - there would not be a problem and it would not be undemocratic. So it's up to you!
I have never said the EU is undemocratic. I have said if you are going to insist that anytthin in Cyprus that means representation of the TC community greater than is numerical proportion is undemocratic then you also have to say the Eu is undemocratic. I do not think such is undemocratic (as a matter of principal), in Cyprus or in the EU - an neither do any of the other countries that joined it. Saying and insisting that it is undemocratic in Cyprus between TC and GC and not so in the Eu is inconcistent.

[erolz]

So Erolz, maybe what I said was racist, however this didn't have any implication on anybody.

That is rubbish. Firstly there is no maybe about it.Secondly spreading hate based propaganda against a group has an impact and effect. Without such 'implication' of the dissemination of such hate based propaganda much of the pain and suffering that has been caused so many inncoent Cypriots (and people aroud the world) would not and could not have happened. To say that it does not is just another 'excuse' to try and 'minimise' your racist postings. Why not just say your posts (multiple) were wrong - you should not have made them, you now regret having made them instead of trying to make out that I am more racist that you when I have made no such postings? (As if even if I were more racist than you that would make your posting 'ok'!)

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

In a nutshell, Othellos is saying that in Cyprus, the TC's want restrictions of settlement for GC's IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. In his eyes that is a pure racist action which impinges in fundamental rights and has no real basis other than to say that 'GC's hate TC's and TC's are afraid of GC's' and therefore we need some kind of separation. Before intercommunal violence broke out in the late 50's, prior to that TC and GC seemed to live quite hapilly together in mixed communities.

You obvioulsy support the view that restrictions should be placed on GC's temporarily or otherwise so the question is do you agree or disagree that these restrictions are racist? You vehemently object to racist views, yet on the flip side you support a division based on race (or religious persuasion which I feel is a more acurate term for Cyprus), temporary or otherwise. Don't you think that there is a touch of hypocricy in what you say?

It would be far better if you just admit that what is proposed in Cyprus is racist and be done with it. If you are so against racism then you would not feel happy with this sort of implementation in Cyprus. Basically you can't have it both ways!

[erolz]

Erol,

In a nutshell, Othellos is saying that in Cyprus, the TC's want restrictions of settlement for GC's IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. In his eyes that is a pure racist action which impinges in fundamental rights and has no real basis other than to say that 'GC's hate TC's and TC's are afraid of GC's' and therefore we need some kind of separation. Before intercommunal violence broke out in the late 50's, prior to that TC and GC seemed to live quite hapilly together in mixed communities.

That's his position and I disagree with it. I disagree that the motive reason TC (those that do) want some form of protected seperation, either permanently or temporarily is that we hate GC as a race. For me the reson is clearly that we have reason to be concerned that such lack of restrictions will erode any political equality that we get as part of an agreement. There are good valid historical reasons why we should fear this and GC have played a mjor part historicaly in that. So Othellos thinks it is racist and clearly so. I can accept his reasoning on this as long as he also admits that the restrictions on EU citizens is also racist in the same nature if not the same degree (because the degree of restriction is different). Before there was systematic violence between the two communites and a systemtaic attempt to remove or restrict the agree rights of one by the other we had little reason to fear these things. Once there had been such we have valid reasons to fear them.

You obvioulsy support the view that restrictions should be placed on GC's temporarily or otherwise so the question is do you agree or disagree that these restrictions are racist?

Actually if you read what I have posted in the past I have sauid that personaly I do not consider geographical seperation fo the two communites are a requirment, provided our political seperation and equality can be ensured without it. I have said that I understand why for many TC such a temporary or even permanent protection of some degree of seperation is desired. I disagree that they are racist - based on my defintion that requires a motive element of hatred of GC - which I deny is the reason these things are wanted. I will accept that it is racist if you insist on using a narrow defintion of racist such as the one Othellos posted. If you insist on such a defintion and admition that the restriction is racist, I insist that you also have to define the restrictions on some EU citizens as racist as well and also talk of the degrees of racisim. So using this defintion I will agree the desire is 'racist' but point out that such forms of racist restrictions exist in the EU and are accept by it today and would be willing to discuss if the such a restricition on GC (and TC) is racist to a degree that is unacceptable or not - based on the existance of such restrictions elsewhere in the EU to lesser degrees. Even using this defintion I refute totaly that these proposed re restrictions on GC are racist to the same degree or in the same way that Piratis comments are racist.

You vehemently object to racist views, yet on the flip side you support a division based on race (or religious persuasion which I feel is a more acurate term for Cyprus), temporary or otherwise. Don't you think that there is a touch of hypocricy in what you say?

You may see it as hypocritical. I do not for the reasons above. If you insist on a narrow defintion of racism then I will accept that these restrcitons are racist, as are the EU ones in place today and still refute that this is racist in the same way or degree to those things I have objected vehmentyly about - and thus not hyopcritical.

It would be far better if you just admit that what is proposed in Cyprus is racist and be done with it. If you are so against racism then you would not feel happy with this sort of implementation in Cyprus. Basically you can't have it both ways!

I have admitted it and given my 'conditions' on such an admission and explain my reasons why I think one form of 'racism' is acceptable (the ones on EU citizens for example) and the other is not (the kind that Piratis displayed). If you think that is having it both ways then that is your perogative. I do not think it is so.